HOA BOARD MEETING NINUTES

Condo or non-condo?

Subject to FS 718 or FS 720 or something else?

Until you answer the above questions, I am going to say no, an owner like yourself does has no legal right to inspect the draft minutes.

Are you sure about that?

HOALeader.com had a discussion on this issue:

Does a member have the right to these unapproved minutes?

The simple answer is that your state law may dictate that you provide minutes to owners within a certain amount of time, and that may mean that you need to distribute draft minutes. "In California, boards are required to make meeting minutes available within 30 days of the meeting date," says Debra A. Warren, principal of Cinnabar Consulting in San Rafael, Calif.,

"In most states, owners are entitled to that information regardless of whether the board has had its next meeting or not," explains Duane McPherson, the San Rafael, Calif.-based division president at RealManage, an association management firm that oversees properties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Nevada, and Texas. "If boards meet monthly, sending draft minutes isn't usually necessary because minutes are approved the next month. So most of the time, owners have access to the minutes within 30 days, and that works just fine.

"But some boards meet quarterly and don't approve meeting minutes until the next quarter, and owners are still allowed to get those minutes," adds McPherson. "So you've got to have the ability to send them in a draft form to those who request them, and we've done that.

If you must produce draft minutes for your members, be sure they're identified as such. "A 'draft' stamp or a box at the top of the minutes that says, 'Draft; hasn't been adopted by the board' is really prudent," says White.

https://www.hoaleader.com/public/427.cfm

And then there's the Davis-Stirling Act in California:

Civil Code Section 4950. Minutes of Meetings.

(a) The minutes, minutes proposed for adoption that are marked to indicate draft status, or a summary of the minutes, of any board meeting, other than an executive session, shall be available to members within 30 days of the meeting. The minutes, proposed minutes, or summary minutes shall be distributed to any member upon request and upon reimbursement of the association’s costs for making that distribution.

Clearly not every state views draft minutes as confidentially privileged information for the board only. Even if they were confidential, a waiver can occur from a variety of conduct that fails to maintain the confidentiality of the communication. Either voluntary or inadvertent disclosure to outside or non-covered recipients can result in waiver as a matter of law. Our HOA attorney advised our HOA board that the draft minutes are confidential and need not be turned over to us per our request. He is obviously unaware that the board president waived that right of confidentiality when he posted to Facebook in February that the draft January board meeting minutes were now online at the owner portal. It's almost August and those clearly marked draft January minutes have still not been approved nor have any other minutes, draft or otherwise, been published.

Boards that never approve minutes but have a backlog of draft minutes going back years raise yet another red flag because such minutes are subject to ongoing change forever. Some refer to this constant rewriting of draft minutes as “revisionist history.”

I like Jeanne's post too, even though Ralph didn't ask if he could inspect draft minutes.

Bt, I've never heard of this so-called "revisionist history" someone--who?? keeps rewiring draft minutes??

On an agenda item, Minutes that have been approved by the board can be rescinded, and then a new vote taken when a board member later notices an error that should be corrected. The board then votes to approve the amended minutes.

Ah, I see, Jeanne. I misundesdtood your "such[draft] minutes are subject to ongoing change forever" which sounds like they keep being rewritten, but never approved.

Think you're better off, Jackie, starting a new thread.

Say, is your PMC certified? The minutes are so odd. They should say "A motion was made to ....repeat exact wording." Then something like: The motion passed two in favor one opposed.," or similar. There's no legal requirement to record a reason for voting no. Boards sometimes do vote to permit the no vote to explain their reason and place it in the minutes.

Your Board votes whether or not they want the motion-maker's name in the minutes and also the name of the one who seconded the motion. It's incorrect to say "a quorum" voted. A quorum is the number of directors required to hold a board meeting. It is not a number required to approve a motion (tho' sometimes the same) A "majority" approves motions if they want that language.

If this is at all useful to you, please cut & paste it on your new thread.

Guidance for the Body of the Minutes in Robert's Rules is indeed to not include discussion but instead, only the actual votes. I support this practice.

I happen to think your single dissenting vote does say a lot. For example, anyone concerned about this "maintenance agreement fee" knows you may be the best person with whom to talk about it.

Also if anyone is thinking of suing the HOA regarding this maintenance fee, you look pretty good compared to the others.

At least you are the Sec/Treasurer now and can try to insert little tidbits that you think will be approved by the other two.

Yes, Secretaries with Board majority support can editorialize enormously, in violation of guidance.

In my specific experience, CAI certification is worthless. I have seen CAI certified individuals violate all manner of covenants, bylaws, rules and regulations and the Fair Housing Act. The education requirements of managers are typically quite low. A high school diploma is common. Experience counts for a lot, of course, but basic literacy and math skills are often absent, in my experience. On the other hand, hiring such individuals is how a HOA saves money.

I am chuckling here. But in all seriousness, I agree the other two directors refusing to consider carefully what the covenants say is a huge part of the problem.

I wonder whether the HOA attorney has the other two directors more than convinced that architectural applications demand a lot of legal review. The declaration likely does say that individual owners can be billed for expenses the individual owners cause (as long as these individual owners add up to less than all owners). It does sound like a money grab by the HOA attorney. But this is just a rough impression. I could be wrong.This weaponizing of owners' funds to pile-on you with the huff and puff intimidation tactics of a HOA attorney is the worst part of HOAs. I hope you post back here as the date gets closer, running ideas by the forum. I hope your group keeps in mind that staying positive seems to be psychologically one of the keys to getting votes. I do think your concerns can be presented in a positive way. E.g. "I will enforce the governing documents. At present for example I am concerned about the HOA maintenance agreement. I have concerns about whether it complies with the governing documents."

You are welcome.

Jackie
Refresh my memory, who gets the $485 fee?

I, too, would be interested in how you draft this letter, the contents and what effect you believe it had. We are also considering a pre-election letter to the condo owners regarding the illegalities of the prior election and the continued failure of the BOD to comply with a handful of state laws, particularly the new 2021 online meeting and election laws signed into law by Gov. Cooper.

Good advice. We actually have a web site that documents and explains the issues with the BOD. Very fact based, many references and documentation, no speculations. Also have a Facebook group that is used to point owners to the web site. The problems we have is that there are so many serious issues that it is difficult to decide which is the most important to be focusing on and how to not overwhelm the owners. I was not prepared for the narrative war the BOD has done to discredit us and how tribal some owners are in their loyalty to the BOD. For these few but vocal owners, truth doesn't matter.

Touchez!

Why am I not surprised?

Suing your HOA is suing yourself and your neighbors. It is not just the board. The HOA attorney is NOT your attorney. They represent the HOA as a whole. The board has to hire them as part of their fiduciary responsibility to protect the entire HOA.

So stop bringing suits against your HOA and work from within stops the vicious cycle.

It should be noted that it may be criminal laws apply over civil for certain acts a person does. It could be considered slander. Which could be a criminal charge. Hence sounds like they decided not to press charges versus suing. Considered yourself lucky criminal charges not on the table.

Apparently, California does not have a criminal defamation law so I'm safe. 😊

Illegal in CA to prohibit criticism of board on social media.
https://findhoalaw.com/civil-code-section-4515-rights-of-assembly-non-commercial-speech/

Keep in mind the truth is relevant only to whom is telling it. Just by saying your telling the truth does not mean a others are not. You speak your truth. The facts of the matter prove otherwise...

Did you know there was a phone company that was called "I do not care" believe in TX. People making a collect call would be asked what provider to use. Many said " I do Not care". The company charged $10 a minute...

So yes having a similar name can do harm. You should not mislead people I suspect intentionally to your point of view by copying something you know people are going to think is true. That is not truthful behavior. Passive aggressive it is.

I own a trademark and I defend it when misused. If they do not respond to my personal request to change it, they get a cease and desist letter from my attorney.

You had a Facebook account name, even a group, using another business's name or close to it? You are very fortunate you had the choice to change the name and keep the content. I own a trademarked business name. A private Facebook group of about 400 people used my business name in the title of their group. All I had to do was provide Facebook with the evidence I owned that name and POOF! The group disappeared instantly with no warning to the admins or members. Everything gone.

You stated prior, "I started a Facebook group a few years ago and got a long threatening letter from board's attorney saying stop telling lies about the board, and demanding I change the name of the page."

The "board's attorney" represents the HOA which, as a non-profit organization, can definitely claim trademark of the association name. Registration of trademark is not required for enforcing trademark rights in the United States. Trademark rights in the United States spring from use in commerce, including non-profit commerce.

And to add to my comment, the US Code defines trademark infringement:

15 U.S. Code § 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

(a) Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

You made one of the most common yet stupid beyond belief mistakes new "I hate my HOA" homeowners make, i.e. naming their opposition group something far too similar to the actual HOA's name.

I have a website the uses the name of the development with HOA.com at the end. (DevelopmentNameHOA.com)

Our development name is pretty common and in fact, people from other parts of the country have joined the public Facebook page which also uses the development name, thinking it was their development. (especially from Florida)

Our HOA is actually a 'Maintenance Organization' and the association attorney and PMC is well aware of this website and so far, several months, have never said anything about it. I clearly have a disclaimer at the bottom of every page that the website is not affiliated in any way with the maintenance association.

At one point, the 'logo' that is commonly used by the maintenance association was trademarked by the Developer, but that trademark expired years ago. I use a similar logo as the 'favicon' on my website.

Do you mean in general or a specific entity like a road associaion?